Update: McCain Selects Gov. Sarah Palin as Running Mate

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by saden1

Why is my statement intellectually dishonest? I simply said McCain can't play the experience and national security card he has been playing given his VP pick. I mean look at his ads. As I have said countless times, I believe experience is overrated and overplayed. You can have all the experience in the world and still lack sound judgment and
have poor policy.

Experience generally becomes unimportant when one does not have any. I wonder would you select your surgeon on this basis as well?

Why are we comparing the experience level of the Obama, and Palin? Compare Obama to Mccain, and Biden to Palin if necessary. Anything else is meaningless

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Experience generally becomes unimportant when one does not have any. I wonder would you select your surgeon on this basis as well?

Why are we comparing the experience level of the Obama, and Palin? Compare Obama to Mccain, and Biden to Palin if necessary. Anything else is meaningless

It depends, Jan Adams has experience but you wouldn't want him cutting your nails much less operate on you. Point is experience is nice but it doesn't tell you much. I routinely interview candidates and they all have all sorts of fancy experience on their resume but the truth is while you can bullshit me with your resume you certainly can't bullshit me on the white-board.

Is it really that hard to understand my position or what I have written? McCain is the one playing the experience card...McCain effectively took the experience card off the table with the Palin pick seeing how he is a dead man walking. Really simple.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Is it really that hard to understand my position or what I have written? McCain is the one playing the experience card...McCain effectively took the experience card off the table with the Palin pick seeing how he is a dead man walking. Really simple.

And yet, the selection of Biden by Obama does not remove the "Change Card" even though Biden is backed by two of the most powerful insider lobbying powers - big labor and trial lawyers. And sorry, don't give me the dead man walking routine in today's world of extended living. (not extended survival -extended living. We are past the days of "shove em in a home at 70")

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by saden1

It depends, Jan Adams has experience but you wouldn't want him cutting your nails much less operate on you. Point is experience is nice but it doesn't tell you much. I routinely interview candidates and they all have all sorts of fancy experience on their resume but the truth is while you can bullshit me with your resume you certainly can't bullshit me on the white-board.

Is it really that hard to understand my position or what I have written? McCain is the one playing the experience card...McCain effectively took the experience card off the table with the Palin pick seeing how he is a dead man walking. Really simple.

No it is not difficult to understand your point. The political machinery on both sdes of the fence is in high gear searching out percieved weakness, and the exploitation of same.
I am not sure if "experience" trumps "change" or not. Your call
Ideally, we need a leader that possess's experience, judgement, etc, etc. While I am impressed with neither, I will end up voting for the one who I feel will do the least damage

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

And yet, the selection of Biden by Obama does not remove the "Change Card" even though Biden is backed by two of the most powerful insider lobbying powers - big labor and trial lawyers. And sorry, don't give me the dead man walking routine in today's world of extended living. (not extended survival -extended living. We are past the days of "shove em in a home at 70")

What does change mean to you? For me, it's change in policy and direction. Remove the change card...which means what? He's a typical politician? His policies will be no different than that of Republicans? He's just looking to get elected?

According to the CIA the mean life expectancy for males is 75.29 years. There's a good chance McCain might not make it through his first term. He has roughly 50/50 chance though his cancer complicates things. Oh never mind, I'm sure he has great genes and he'll get the best care money can buy to extend his life.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Hog1

No it is not difficult to understand your point. The political machinery on both sdes of the fence is in high gear searching out percieved weakness, and the exploitation of same.
I am not sure if "experience" trumps "change" or not. Your call
Ideally, we need a leader that possess's experience, judgement, etc, etc. While I am impressed with neither, I will end up voting for the one who I feel will do the least damage

Experience vs Change? What does that mean?

Qualify "least damage."

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by saden1

Experience vs Change? What does that mean?

Qualify "least damage."

Mccain's platform of experience
Obama's platform of change

Least damage=least damage done to our country by either of our prospective Presidents
IMO it is a shame this is the best we can field.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by mheisig

The script goes something like this:

Obama: "We need change! Change, and hope!"

General Audience: "Sounds good! But what kind of change? What are we changing TO?"

Obama: "Just change. And hope too, don't forget the hope."

Liberals: "Can't argue with that, change is good! Long as we go somewhere, who cares where it is, right?"

Conservatives: "Change is scary. That nice looking old white man looks more reliable."

Obama: "pssst...change! (and hope)"

McCain: Unavailable. Currently having some soldering work done on his iron lung.

Obama: "We're hopeful FOR change! And the change will bring us hope!"

General Audience: "I don't know, still not sure what's changing or what it's changing to.

Liberals: "YEAH! We'll just hope that the change takes us where we want to go! We'll hammer out the specifics later."

Conservatives: Unavailable. Too embarrassed to comment.

McCain: "I'll give you change! How does a 44-year old woman as VP sound?!"

Obama: "Um...well, we don't really want THAT kind of change."

General Audience: "So what kind of change is good?"

Obama: "Don't know, but we know it's not that kind of change. It's change, just different."

Liberals: "Woohoo! Change! And hope!"

Conservatives: "Yowza! She's hot AND she's got a gun!"

Greatest. Post. Ever.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

Palin is also batshit crazy...no abortion in case of rape and incest!

I'm not a hard line pro lifer in the slightest, but do explain why this is a "batshit crazy" position given the implication from the religious right that Abortion is a form of Murder.

Given that implication, the next step in logic tells us that two moral wrongs would not make a right.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

According to the CIA the mean life expectancy for males is 75.29 years.

Don't forget to mention that the mean life expectancy for any male who lives to (at least) age 72 is much higher than that.

This is not a whole lot different from arguing that the mean football team finishes 8-8, so the 7-3 Colts have little chance at the playoffs.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by saden1

According to the CIA the mean life expectancy for males is 75.29 years. There's a good chance McCain might not make it through his first term. He has roughly 50/50 chance though his cancer complicates things. Oh never mind, I'm sure he has great genes and he'll get the best care money can buy to extend his life.

Poor math, Saden.

If you were asking what is the life expectancy of a male baby born today, the answer would be 75.29 years. But we're not, we're asking what is the life expectancy of a 72 year old who has a healthy heart, is not and has never been overweight, who eats healthily and gets exercise.

The life expectancy on a person with that profile is a lot higher than 75.29.

Life expectancy stats factor in the chances of someone being shot in the head, dying in a car accident, eating like crap and clogging their heart, drinking heavily, etcetera etcetera. Given that McCain does none of those things, those factors go out of the equation for him, and the LE number goes up.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm not a hard line pro lifer in the slightest, but do explain why this is a "batshit crazy" position given the implication from the religious right that Abortion is a form of Murder.

Given that implication, the next step in logic tells us that two moral wrongs would not make a right.

Oh that explains it. She's a pro-life Christian so it's OK to have vulgar and unreasonable religious beliefs?

Two wrongs? What is wrong is imposing your religious beliefs on others through legislative means.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Don't forget to mention that the mean life expectancy for any male who lives to (at least) age 72 is much higher than that.

This is not a whole lot different from arguing that the mean football team finishes 8-8, so the 7-3 Colts have little chance at the playoffs.

McCain is the Colts? Couldn't he be the 6-3 Lions or 10-6 Browns?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Poor math, Saden.

If you were asking what is the life expectancy of a male baby born today, the answer would be 75.29 years. But we're not, we're asking what is the life expectancy of a 72 year old who has a healthy heart, is not and has never been overweight, who eats healthily and gets exercise.

The life expectancy on a person with that profile is a lot higher than 75.29.

Life expectancy stats factor in the chances of someone being shot in the head, dying in a car accident, eating like crap and clogging their heart, drinking heavily, etcetera etcetera. Given that McCain does none of those things, those factors go out of the equation for him, and the LE number goes up.

I am wrong in my assessment. He he has better chance of making it out of his first term than I gave him credit.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

Oh that explains it. She's a pro-life Christian so it's OK to have vulgar and unreasonable religious beliefs?

Two wrongs? What is wrong is imposing your religious beliefs on others through legislative means.

What's vulgar and unreasonable to you could be simple common sense to someone else, and to argue that your position should be considered the higher authority in all disagreements is beyond ignorant, it would be arrogant and utterly pathetic.

Which is why, to avoid such a situation, I feel you would be wise to master the skill of arguing based on implications. If the implication is "abortion=murder" (which is something I don't even necessarily agree with, but a lot of very intelligent people do), then you can't act like the people who believe this are inherently wrong. To do so would be batshit crazy.